Earlier quoted context omitted.
No chance of that. GPLv3 wasn't just an update, it was a major change from GPLv2. Importantly, it limited developers own rights to use code of projects they contribute to how they want (including in devices that are locked or secured in various ways). Plenty of people even outside of Linux are not going to be going to GPLv3. The GPLv3 split also damaged the more copyleft side of things as I think some kernel devs pre…
> GPLv3 wasn't just an update, it was a major change from GPLv2. Importantly, it limited developers own rights to use code of projects they contribute to how they want (including in devices that are locked or secured in various ways). This is FUD. - The developer's own rights to their own code are never limited. What is limited is the rights they get to other people's code. - GPL does not limit use in any way, it lim…
If so, great, the claim is FUD.
Reality is GPLv3 folks have lied about almost everything - Ubuntu had to get special private communication from FSF to be able to ship a GPLv3 bootloader etc.
And no, the license is pretty darn clear to most of us, even if you are a major contributor to a project, you CANNOT use that project code how you would like. This is not FUD, this is part of the license design. That is a major change from GPLv2 which is what we are discussing.
A reminder that developers, not users, pick the license of code. That is also fundamental to copyright law. You can write a license that makes developers pay users $1,000. Users might like that. Developers may not choose it. That is what is happening here in many cases. Developers are choosing to avoid GPL for other options.
Again - this conversation would be helped if someone had some data. Anecdotally I'm seeing lots more MIT / Apache stuff than GPLv3 stuff these days.